Supreme Court sounds willing to allow Atlanta family's lawsuit against FBI after wrong-house raid
Supreme Court sounds willing to allow Atlanta family's lawsuit against FBI after wrong-house raid Trina Martin, her son Gabe and her partner Toi Cliatt awoke one morning in October 2017 to what she called the 'monstrous noise' of a half-dozen FBI agents barging into their home with guns drawn.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Can FBI be sued if agents raid wrong house? Supreme Court to weigh in.
Trina Martin, son Gabe Watson and partner Toi Cliatt seek compensation after their house was mistakenly raided by the FBI.
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court sounded willing to allow an Atlanta family to sue the FBI for compensation over the mistaken search of their home, but reluctant to define how much protection law enforcement officers deserve in carrying out their jobs.
Trina Martin, her son Gabe and her partner Toi Cliatt awoke one morning in October 2017 to what she called the 'monstrous noise' of a half-dozen FBI agents barging into their home with guns drawn.
But the FBI agents were at the wrong home, 436 feet from a similar beige, split-level house where a suspected gang member lived. The justices sounded willing to allow a lawsuit for compensation for the mistake, after lower courts dismissed the case.
'You are begging the question, which is, how far does this discretionary exception goes?' Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the government lawyer.
The FBI agents described their meticulous planning to search the house by locating it with GPS during daylight, taking pictures and drawing up a tactical plan. Frederick Liu, an assistant to the solicitor general, said officers were weighing public safety concerns and executing the search swiftly through steps such as not checking the address on the mailbox at the house before entering.
'Don't break down the wrong door'
Justice Gorsuch asked whether U.S. policy says, 'don't break down the wrong door of a house' or 'don't traumatize its occupants.'
'How about make sure you're on the right street?' Gorsuch asked.
'Of course, it's the United States policy to execute the warrants at the right house,' Liu replied. 'What I would say is exactly what the courts below found, which is that the officers here made a reasonable mistake as to where they were."
Liu said a 1974 change in federal law at the heart of the case removed one protection for police against lawsuits but left another in place to block the family's case. But Sotomayor was skeptical.
'That is so ridiculous,' Sotomayor said.
What is the Federal Tort Claims Act?
The family sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which Congress amended in 1974 to allow lawsuits against law enforcement after two wrong-house raids the year before. But the government argued that judges shouldn't second-guess agents doing their jobs. A District Court and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case by finding the agents were immune.
Gorsuch asked whether the high court could send the case back to the 11th Circuit to determine whether the FBI in this case deserved discretion to make the mistake they did.
'Wouldn't that be a sensible course?' Gorsuch asked.
Patrick Jaicomo, a lawyer at the Institute for Justice representing the family, said federal appeals courts have disagreed about how much discretion police deserve with messy discussions of the faces of specific cases. But the 11th Circuit's decision would rule out any lawsuits against law enforcement – despite Congress changing the law, Jaicomo argued.
'The line is being drawn right now by all the circuits. They're just confused about where to draw it,' Jaicomo said. 'There needs to be some guidance on this, so that this statutory provision actually has effect.'
Roberts suggests lawsuit 'plausible' under statute
The statute removed sovereign immunity from lawsuits for "assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process or malicious prosecution" based on 'acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government."
Liu, the government lawyer, said Congress hadn't intended to remove all protections for law enforcement based on where changes were made in the statute.
But Chief Justice John Roberts said lawmakers are busy and 'it's certainly plausible' the family's lawsuit should be allowed.
'I don't really think that's plausible,' Liu replied.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the justices could simply return the case to the 11th Circuit by saying a provision in the Constitution doesn't prevent a lawsuit and let the lower-court judges sort out how much discretion police deserve in making mistakes.
Justices sound reluctant to define how much protection police get from lawsuits
Justices sounded reluctant to map out how much discretion law enforcement officers deserve.
Sotomayor said a Secret Service agent who mistakenly arrested someone while protecting the president deserved protection from a claim of false arrest. She disagreed that legal claims for intentional actions could never be discretionary.
'I'm not quite sure that's true,' Sotomayor said.
Justice Samuel Alito told the family's lawyer the high court could simply send the case back to the 11th Circuit to discuss how much discretion to grant the FBI agents for their mistake.
'I know you would like us to go quite far,' Alito said. 'Why should we go further than that and get into this enormously complicated question about the scope of the discretionary function exception?'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
11 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Takeaways from AP's investigation of US death benefits program for public safety officers
A federal program that provides benefits to families of police officers and firefighters who die and become disabled on duty is rapidly growing while facing criticism for increasing delays in deciding claims. Congress created the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program in 1976 to guarantee that the spouses and children of officers who put their lives on the line would receive financial support. But repeated expansions in eligibility approved by Congress, including three passed in the last five years, have made the program more popular and complex to administer. Critics say the program fails some families by taking too long to grant or deny benefits and making inconsistent rulings. An Associated Press analysis found that hundreds of families are waiting years to learn whether they qualify for payments, and more are ultimately being denied. For one widow, payment came just as she'd given up hope New Jersey widow Sharline Volcy learned this month that she'd been awarded the benefits, more than 3 1/2 years after her husband, Ronald Donat, died while training at the Gwinnett County Police Academy in Georgia. Volcy said she was grateful for the aid, which will provide some financial security and help pay for her two daughters to go to college. But she said the long wait was stressful, when she was told time and again the claim remained under review and ultimately saw her inquiries ignored. 'They told me they didn't know how long it would take because they don't have a deadline. That's the hardest thing to hear,' she said. 'I felt defeated.' She said lawyers didn't want to take the case, and a plea for help to her congressperson went nowhere. She said she'd given up hope and was lucky she had a job as an airport gate agent in the meantime. The benefits program isn't meeting its timeframe goal Volcy's experience isn't unique, and some cases take longer. As of late April, more than 120 claims by surviving relatives or disabled first responders have been awaiting initial determinations or rulings on their appeals for more than five years, according AP's findings. About a dozen have waited over a decade for an answer. The program has a goal of making determinations within one year but has not taken steps to track its progress, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. But roughly three in 10 cases have not met that timeframe in recent years. As of late late April, 900 claims had been pending longer than one year. That includes claims from nearly every state. Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill to require the program to make determinations within 270 days. The denial rate for benefits is up, too Over the last year, the denial rate has increased, with roughly one in three death and disability claims getting rejected. Applicants can appeal to a hearing officer and then the director if they choose, but that isn't common. Many say they can't afford attorneys or want to get on with their lives. Justice Department officials, who oversee the program, say they're making complicated decisions about whether cases meet legal criteria. 'Death and disability claims involving complex medical and causation issues, voluminous evidence and conflicting medical opinions, take longer to determine, as do claims in various stages of appeal,' they said in a statement. Claims have doubled in recent years The program started as a simple $50,000 payout for the families of officers who were fatally shot on duty or died as a result of other violence or dangers. But Congress expanded the program in 1990 to cover some first responders who were disabled on duty, which made some determinations harder to reach. A 1998 law added educational benefits for the spouses and children of those deceased and disabled officers. Since 2020, Congress has passed three laws making many other types of deaths and disabilities eligible, including deaths related to COVID-19, deaths and injuries of those working rescue and cleanup operations after the September 2001 attacks, and responders who committed suicide under certain circumstances. Annual claims have more than doubled in the last five years, from 500 in 2019 to roughly 1,200 today. Critics say a key partnership creates a conflict of interest While many applicants have criticized the increasing delays, the leading group that represents the relatives of officers who die on duty has been silent. Critics say that's because the group, Concerns of Police Survivors, has a financial incentive not to criticize the program, which has awarded it tens of millions of dollars in grant funding in recent decades. The Missouri-based nonprofit recently received a new $6 million grant from the program to for its work with deceased officers' relatives, including counseling, hosting memorial events, educating agencies about the program and assisting with claims. The group's founder and retired executive director, Suzie Sawyer, said she was warned many years ago that fighting too hard for claimants could jeopardize its grant funding. But current spokesperson Sara Slone said advocacy isn't the group's mission and that it works 'hand in hand' with PSOB to assist applicants and provide education about benefits. One widow's fight has been remarkable, supporters say Lisa Afolayan's husband died after a training exercise at the Border Patrol academy more than 16 years ago, but she's still fighting the program for benefits. An autopsy found that Nate Afolayan died from heat illness after completing a 1.5-mile test run in 88 degree heat, at a high altitude in the New Mexico desert. The program had awarded benefits to families after similar training deaths, dating back to an officer who died at an academy in 1988. But its independent investigation blamed Nate's death on sickle cell trait, a genetic condition that's usually benign but has been linked to rare exertion-related deaths in police, military and sports training. The program denied Lisa's claim and her subsequent appeals, arguing the death wasn't the result of heat along and didn't qualify. The program stood by its denial in 2024, even after a federal appeals court said it may have failed to adequately consider the weather's role and violated a law barring discrimination on the basis of genetic information.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New York judge blocks ICE office from opening on Rikers Island
NEW YORK (PIX11) — The Supreme Court of the State of New York has issued a preliminary injunction to block New York City Mayor Eric Adams from opening an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office at Rikers Island. The ruling on Friday came after Adams previously announced that Homeland Security would work with the NYPD and the city's Department of Correction to investigate gang activity at Rikers Island. More Local News 'The State Supreme Court's ruling will effectively prevent thousands of New Yorkers a year from being deported simply because they were accused – not even convicted – of a crime,' said the President and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition Murad Awawdeh. 'New York City should not be in the business of carrying out Donald Trump's mass disappearance agenda, which is in fact illegal under our local laws,' the statement continued. More: Latest News from Around the Tri-State ICE previously had officers on Rikers Island until 2014 when the City Council passed sanctuary laws that banned the organization from operating in NYC jails. Advocates had been hoping to block immigration officials from reestablishing an office on Rikers Island saying that the agency had been depriving defendants of due process, some of whom may be in the U.S. legally. According to court documents, judges found that reestablishing an ICE office on Rikers Island would risk 'damage to reputation, loss of goodwill, and brand tarnishment' to New York City due to its reputation as a 'Sanctuary City.' 'Moreover, the imminent threat of the loss of public trust in government institutions serves as a basis for injunctive relief,' the court document reads. The injunction makes it so that all other NYC government officials, officers, personnel and agencies are barred from creating an ICE office on Rikers until the end of the proceeding. Dominique Jack is a digital content producer from Brooklyn with more than five years of experience covering news. She joined PIX11 in 2024. More of her work can be found here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump blocks California's ban on new sales of gas-powered cars
The Brief President Trump has blocked California's 2035 ban on the sale of gas-powered vehicles. In response to his blocking, California has filed a lawsuit challenging the motion. President Donald Trump signed a resolution blocking California's first-in-the-nation rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. The state quickly announced it was challenging the move in court. What we know The resolution was approved by Congress last month and aims to quash the country's most aggressive attempt to phase out gas-powered cars. Trump also signed measures to overturn state policies curbing tailpipe emissions in certain vehicles and smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks. Trump called California's regulations "crazy" at a White House ceremony where he signed the resolutions on Thursday. "It's been a disaster for this country," he said. The other side In response to the president's decision, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit, saying Trump's actions "will have life or death consequences for CA communities breathing dirty, toxic air." "We've filed our lawsuit against the Trump Admin for illegally targeting California's clean vehicles program. CA will fiercely defend ourselves from this lawless federal overreach," Bonta wrote in a post on X. Dig deeper The three resolutions Trump signed will block California's rule phasing out gas-powered cars and end the sale of new ones by 2035. They will also kill rules that phase out the sale of medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles and cut tailpipe emissions from trucks. In his remarks at the White House, Trump expressed doubts about the performance and reliability of electric vehicles, though he had some notably positive comments about the company owned by Elon Musk, despite their fractured relationship. "I like Tesla," Trump said. In remarks that often meandered away from the subject at hand, Trump used the East Room ceremony to also muse on windmills, which he claimed "are killing our country," the prospect of getting electrocuted by an electric-powered boat if it sank and whether he'd risk a shark attack by jumping as the boat went down. "I'll take electrocution every single day," the president said. When it comes to cars, Trump said he likes combustion engines but for those that prefer otherwise, "If you want to buy electric, you can buy electric." What they're saying "What this does is it gives us freedom," said Bill Kent, the owner of Kent Kwik convenience stores. Kent, speaking at the White House, said that the California rules would have forced him to install "infrastructure that frankly, is extremely expensive and doesn't give you any return." The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents major car makers, applauded Trump's action. "Everyone agreed these EV sales mandates were never achievable and wildly unrealistic," John Bozzella, the group's president and CEO, said in a statement. Trump's signing of the resolutions comes as he has pledged to revive American auto manufacturing and boost oil and gas drilling. The move follows other steps the Trump administration has taken to roll back rules that aim to protect air and water and reduce emissions that cause climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday proposed repealing rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas. Dan Becker with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the signing of the resolutions was "Trump's latest betrayal of democracy." "Signing this bill is a flagrant abuse of the law to reward Big Oil and Big Auto corporations at the expense of everyday people's health and their wallets," Becker said in a statement. California, which has some of the nation's worst air pollution, has been able to seek waivers for decades from the EPA, allowing it to adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government. In his first term, Trump revoked California's ability to enforce its standards, but Democratic President Joe Biden reinstated it in 2022. Trump has not yet sought to revoke it again. Republicans have long criticized those waivers and earlier this year opted to use the Congressional Review Act, a law aimed at improving congressional oversight of actions by federal agencies, to try to block the rules. That's despite a finding from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, that California's standards cannot legally be blocked using the Congressional Review Act. The Senate parliamentarian agreed with that finding. California, which makes up roughly 11% of the U.S. car market, has significant power to sway trends in the auto industry. About a dozen states signed on to adopt California's rule phasing out the sale of new gas-powered cars. The Source Information for this story came from President Donald Trump, an X post by AG Rob Bonta, and the Associated Press.
